Tuesday, April 19, 2005

George Scales

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Riley's physical description is like that of a Kirby Puckett or Cupid Childs type body. Scales was college educated and apparently put that to good use learning to position himself for hitters, helping start up the NY Black Yankees in 1932, managing very successfully in both the NgL and esepcially in the carribean, and finally becoming a stockbroker after his baseball career had run its course.

Don't want to get ahead of myself here, but I find myself excited about this NLer with whom I was only vaguely familiar. Some nice hitting records so far, plus a key defensive position. Looking forward to reading more.

While we'll need to be careful with park factors for Scales' stats, he definitely fits the profile of NeL stars whom the HoM may like better than history so far has:

very good hitter, adequate but not outstanding (and certainly not graceful) defensively. It includes Beckwith, Scales, Suttles, Wilson.

This group is balanced by the group of players whom history likes better than the HoM: good hitters, speed, outstanding defensive reputation. It includes Bell, Lundy, and Mackey.

I'm not concluding here that Scales should be elected -- I have no idea about that yet -- nor am I concluding that Bell, Lundy, and Mackey shouldn't be (I think Mackey definitely should be elected). But I want to note the pattern in our assessment of NeL players and the way our analysis is relating to received reputations, which I find interesting.

One more question, while Gary's fielding numbers look good rf and f% have their obvious shortcomings. How sure are we that he was better at his position than Wilson or Beckwtih were at theirs?

Hm. I'd have to look back at the Beckwith and Wilson stats to construct a comparative answer, but it strikes me that an infielder in a small ballpark that turns a certain percentage of fly-ball outs into home runs is likely to benefit in raw range factor, so this data may show Scales as somewhat better than he actually was.

Scales is far enough above average in range factor, however, that I can't see a park effect turning him into an below-average defender, at least at this stage of his career. I'm prepared to consider him as at least an adequate major-league second baseman.

At this moment, I'm curious about his double-play rates. How, at short and at second, does he compare to league averages on double plays per game, or something like that? Gary A., would it be easy for you to answer that question?

Well, let's see: here are his double play rates (per 9 innings) at shortstop and second base, followed by the league averages at those positions:
ss: .427 (.271)
2b: .313 (.251)

Some obvious issues: sample size (which we can't do anything about right now), dp reporting rates, and runners on base.

For Scales's home games (and a good number of his road games), I think we've pretty much got the double plays. Any games in Atlantic City and some games in Philadelphia are suspect, though. Luckily most of the Lincolns' games were at home (33 of 51).

For runners on base (dp opportunities), I don't have anything systematic (though I can whip something up in the next couple of days). However, the Lincolns' on-base percentage allowed was .332 (league average .333); their slugging percentage allowed was .406 (league average .383). They also allowed slightly more stolen bases per game than average (o.97 to 0.91). They start off with a league average number of base runners, but the last two factors would tend to drive down double play opportunities a bit. So it looks like the Lincolns' double play opportunities were a little less than league average.

The team turned .61 double plays per nine innings (league average .49). So both Scales and his team seem (by the limited evidence available) to have turned more double plays than average, with slightly fewer opportunities than average.

If his teams allowed a higher slugging percentage would it likely follow that they had a lower GB/FB ratio? The big thing with DP's (and rf as well) is whether or not a groundball hit to that particular player was common or not. A higher SLG may mean a lower GB/FB ratio, therefore meaning that Scales DP rates are legit.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, along with the vague idea that a higher SLG would also push along a few baserunners past first or the clear the bases a little more often. I could look do some kind of win shares-type analysis of league and team assists/putouts, too. That would take a little time.

Before we get too carried away with George Scales, we should ask the question, is he the best available Negro League 2B? IOW is he the best NeL 2B not named Frank Grant (of course, Grant never really played in the NeL, per se, so maybe my first question works).

Anyway, I think the answer is no.

Bill Monroe is the only one (eligible today) who was pretty clearly the best, or at worst one of the 2-3 best position players in the NeLs at his peak. The others are not even remotely close to that. Now, of course, Monroe was a bigger fish in a smaller pond. But to me the burden of proof is to show that anybody who came after was as good as Monroe.

Among the best of the rest, I guess that with the glove the pecking order is DeMoss, Allen, then Scales or Hughes.

With the bat: Maybe Scales, then Allen or Hughes, then DeMoss a fairly distant fourth.

Is Hughes eligible, BTW? I forget.

But at the moment I would have to have it:

1. Monroe
2. Allen or Scales--James comps Allen's style to tony Taylor, Frannk White, Manny Trillo, Cookie Rojas, Julie Javier--faint praise indeed, though that is only for style, not quality--his actual numbers comp Scales quite well and I think he is regarded as superior defensively
3. Scales or Allen--Scales he (BJ) likens to Bill Madlock
4. DeMoss--bunter and slap hitter but the best with the glove
5. Hughes--BJ comps him to Sandberg and Larkin

Monroe has been on my ballot in the (distant) past and could get there again. But he has not been on my ballot recently. And Allen has been down in the 50s and 60s. Scales would have to be a lot better than Allen to be as good as Monroe, and would have to be clearly better than Monroe to make my ballot right now.

The evidence suggests neither. Maybe he belongs in the consideration set, and maybe he belongs somewhere around Allen in the 60s. There's pretty much going to have to be a case of mistaken identity (in terms of the above data) for him to make my ballot.

While I agree that we shouldn't be too quick to lionize Scales while Monroe is still out there, I do think that relying too much on Bill James's rankings is dubious.

We've seen with previous candidates that he's basically read a couple of the same books we may have (namely, Riley and Holway), and his rankings are, therefore, susceptible to many of the same peculiarities and errors that his source material is. And I think he'd be the first to admit this. This issue seems to particularly rear its head at 3B, 2B, and the corner outfield positions. It seems as though expert opinion, the HOF, and statistical analysis are most divergent at these positions which leads to his rankings jumbalaya there.

Again, however, I say that believing that Monroe is probably being underrated by me and the electorate in general.

How ironic, everytime I mention Bill James by name somebody objects. Strange.

But anyway, if you read my post in detail you would know I didn't "rely" on James' rankings at all. I have his #5 at #1, and his #1 at #4. I have the guy he comps to Tony Taylor ahead of the guy he comps to Larkin and Sandberg.

My main point--Monroe still seems to have been by far the best of this group, i.e. not only a good glove but one of the best hitters of the day.

By comparison Scales and DeMoss and the others are probably 200 OPS points or more behind the best hitters, and probably 100 OPS points or more behind the best SSs nor anywhere near as valuable defensively as Lundy and Moore and Wells.

You're right I knee-jerked about James. It's strange and interesting, this bash-the-expert-ranking phenomenon. It seems like whenever we talk about a third-party's player rankings that there's a tendency to poo-poo them for their gaps (and this is particularly true for James's approach to ranking NgL and 19th C. players), but when we talk about other things he's done, the usual reverence is in play because we are then using his ideas as part of our toolbox instead of as evidence.

So I guess this is in a sense similar to the warning that Gadfly issued about Chris Cobb's projections: that as discussers (let alone voters), many of us worry about ourselves (or others) taking expert rankings and MLEs as gospel because we know comparatively little about the players involved. [which isn't to suggest that Chris wouldn't advise each of us to make up our own mind, by the way]

Hmmm...given that, I ought to take my own advice and take a long, hard look at Lundy and Redding....

Bill Madlock may be a legit offensive comparable, but right now I am not convinced that Scales awasn't at lesat an average 2B. His DP rates are good, his rf is good (and this despite his teams giving up a high SLG, possibly meaning a low GB/FB ratio), and his F% is decent as well.

Still, I can't really put him above Dobie Moore right now and Moore is 16th. Right now he probably falls into my MI glut of Lundy, Monroe, Doyle, and Sewell, anywhere from 25-40.

It's odd, I want to take yet another look at Monroe, but in my head I can't think of anyone that he is obviously better than (maybe doyle, maybe sewell but that won't get him much higher). In some way I think we as voters are having a hard time adjusting to the fact that we have much stronger eligibles now than 15-20 years ago. Scales would most likely have made a number of ballots had he become eligible when Bill Monroe did. Same with Frank Duncan and Bruce Petway.

I've started work on MLEs for George Scales, and I now have to consider park factors . . .

Some questions:

1) The St. Louis Stars were playing in their great hitters' park in 1923, yes?

2) Gary A., do you have any park factors for the Lincoln Giants in the Catholic Protectory Oval? Was it as good a hitters' park as St. Louis, or a bit less extreme? I've only done one season of MLEs for a NY Lincoln Giants player: John Beckwith in 1930, and I used a pf of 110 for that season. Does that seem right, or should it be lowered? raised??

3) Do we know anything about where the NY Black Yankees played? Even late in the 1930s, Holway has Scales with some excellent power numbers when he was playing for the Black Yankees. Were they in the Oval or some other hitters' park then?

I don't know about the years Scales was there, but in Green Cathedrals Philip Lowry has the 1938 Black Yankees playing at Triborough Stadium, which was located near the Triborough Bridge on Randall's Island. Scales wasn't playing there in '38, and Lowry only has the NY Black Yankees in the Triborough Stadium for 1938, but maybe they were there other years?

Chris, the only pf for the Catholic Protectory Oval is for 1928: 130, for 33 home games, 18 road games. I don't have systematic evidence for other seasons, but my strong impression is that it was a very good hitters' park. I am close to having enough data for 1924 park factors in the east, so maybe I can put those together over the weekend (my main concern is not having all the scores from Harrisburg). Anyway, an adjustment of 110 seems reasonable to me for now.

Yes, the Stars were in the great hitters' park by 1923 (they moved in mid-1922).

At some point in the 1930s the Black Yankees started playing in Yankees Stadium (that in fact may be why they adopted the name). I have a vague memory that in 1934 they used a park somewhere in New Jersey, but I will have to check up on that to make sure.

These MLEs are developed by the usual processes. Here are a few specifics of which you should be aware.

1) I set Scales’ MLE seasons as running from 1923 to 1938. I calculated MLEs for 1921 to 1940 to make the regression smooth for his MLE seasons, and I have posted these seasons as well. Scales played through 1946, but I did not see any likelihood of MLE credit for these, his age 41-46 seasons.

2) The park factor for Scales from 1923-30 is 110, as he played in great hitters’ parks throughout this period, first for the St. Louis Stars and then for the NY Lincoln Giants. After that I have set his park factor as 100.

3) There is very little data available for Scales’ seasons from 1932 to 1939 except for 1935, his last year with the Grays. He played with the NY Black Yankees in 4 of those seasons when they were not in a league, so few of their games have been documented. He played in Santa Domingo in 1937, and there is data for that, but there’s no telling what the level of competition was.

Unfortunately, Macmillan 10th and Holway give very different views of Scales’ abilities as a hitter from 1932 through 1936. Macmillan has him falling off a cliff in 1932, posting averages of .217, .250, .146, .248, and .217 for those years, based on at bat totals of 46, 8, 48, 137, and 60, respectively. Holway doesn’t give ab totals, but it looks like his data base isn’t much larger. His averages, however, are significantly higher, more or less in line with a gradual decline from Scales’ prime: .292, .375, .200, .256, .358.

Thus, we have two very different pictures of Scales’ later career. Regression analysis brings them towards one another, but his career totals still differ significantly depending on which set of numbers you accept as more valid. I have therefore done two sets of MLEs. They use the same data 1921-31, diverge from 32-36, and join again 37-40. The MLEs for 1937 are based purely on regression analysis of the surrounding seasons.

4) Playing time for Scales is modeled on the playing time of Frisch and Traynor, contemporaries of Scales playing at his two positions and having a comparable stretch of play as starters. Both averaged just over 140 games per season for their first ten years as regulars, then averaged just over 120 for their remaining 5 years. I’ve varied Scales’ playing time from season to season to hit averages of 142 games and 122 games for these parts of his careers, with variation above and below the mean comparable to these two. I’ve also used them as models for the ratio of PA to games.

5) In the common years of 1921 to 1931, I’ve used Gary A.’s data for 1921, 1923, and 1928 and Holway’s data for 1931. Other years are drawn from Macmillan 10th.

I do like middle indielders with offensive skills, but right now I can't justify putting Scales ahead of Dobie Moore. I think some of the initial excitement about him didnt' take into account his home parks, which overall were very easy on the bats. At best I could make him a part of the Sewell, Doyle, Monroe, Lundy backlog in the late 20's and early 30's. Of course some of you will be irate that I just insinuated that Scales was a good as Sewell.

-First you have Year, Team(s), PA.
-Second you have Chris's MLE's
-Third, in parentheses, you have pitchers-removed offense context. MLB for the 20s, then NL
-Fourth, you have AVG+/OBP+/SLG+
-Lastly, is the OPS+

I know we're not supposed to be looking ahead but at a minimum I would wait until I was sure he was better than Sammy Hughes. I think he might be better than Newt Allen and I'm pretty sure he was better than Bingo DeMoss. But I couldn't possibly vote for any of them until I was sure which was the best of the group...

Not to mention I'd have to be convinced that the best of this group is also better than Bill Monroe, and right now I'm pretty sure he (whomever he is) is not.

Still I'd consider Scales if I could be convinced of those two things: 1) Better than Allen, DeMoss and Hughes, and 2) Better than Monroe.

Phil Lowry lists Hinchcliffe Stadium, Paterson NJ, as the home field of the NNL Black Yankees, 1936-37 and 1939-45. The listing immediately precedes the one for Triborough Stadium, New York NY. That is, it's a New York NY listing because the team represented that city. We'll see how he handles the AL Angels in the third edition.

If the Macmillan numbers are right, Scales' career value as a hitter is almost a dead ringer for Joe Sewell, +1000 PA: Good OBP, league average power.

Sewell has a big advantage on defense, Scales' peak as a hitter probably a bit higher. Without needing closer analysis, I take Sewell.

Scales' career length is almost a dead ringer for Pie Traynor, and the OPS+ is very similar, though Scales' advantage comes from BB and Traynor's from above average power.

Traynor would edge Scales on defense: I take Traynor, no further analysis needed.

If the Holway numbers are more accurate, Scales has Sewell's OBP and Traynor's power, so he has a clear advantage on offense over both, and we have to start estimating WS to see where exactly Scales lands in the glut of good candidates.

We also, at that point, demand a new look at Dick Lundy and Dobie Moore . . .

As to Allen, DeMoss, Hughes, and Monroe.

Allen, DeMoss, and Hughes were surely great defensive players, but they were slap hitters.

Allen and Hughes slugged about .400 in their NeL careers; that leads to MLE slugging percentages around .340-.360: they look to be Rabbit Maranville/Marty Marion type hitters. Hughes may have been a bit better than that, since most of his career falls in a lower offense period, but he was not an exceptional hitter in any case.

DeMoss's hitting is harder to evaluate because of lack of data and the effect of Schorling Park and Rube-Foster small ball on his stats, but he _looks_ a lot worse than Allen and Hughes, and proper adjustments are only likely to bring him up to their level.

Of the three, Allen seems to me to be the best: he might have a decent career case: I see his MLE career as about 18 seasons, 1924-41. DeMoss just doesn't look to have the hitting, and Hughes doesn't have enough career at 15 MLE seasons, 1932-46, given that he hit no better than Allen.

Bill Monroe is another matter. He has a great defensive reputation and a good hitting reputation. I feel like I have no firm idea of how good he really was: I am less certain about him than about any other NeL player who has been under serious consideration.

So among the NeL second base group, Allen deserves a look to see if his OPS+ breaks 100 and his superior defensive value makes up his hitting shortfall in comparison to Scales. Monroe -- well, do what you will with his reputation.

Paul,
That's "Hinchliffe" stadium in Paterson, although 9 of 10 every 10 references I see calls incorrectly call it Hinchcliffe (it just sounds better, but the former Paterson mayor was Hinchliffe, alas).

I think it closed in 1997, but it may yet be saved. It's on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, having opened in 1932.
FYI, Larry Doby is from Paterson and always was fond of his roots. Many Paterson parks and such bear Doby's name.

It seems that he got a boost from the study over both Mac and Holway. With Holway MLE's, he had a 118 OPS+. Just eyeballing the new stats would bring him over 120, perhaps up to 125. Plus, his OPS is heavy on the OBP, and so may underrate him.

I decided to try my hand at estimating Scales' Win shares. Any errors are mine alone and a result of my misunderstanding of Chris' and Doc's methods.

I used Scales' MLE OPS+/OBP/SLG and tried to find players at his position with comparable rates. I used both leagues from 1921-1929 and the NL from 1930 to 1938. I thought that was how the translations were done. Then, I found those players win shares and compared their win shares to games played. I used that rate and multiplied that by Scales' games played. Chris said he set Scales' games played to average to 142 games over his first 10 seasons and 120 games over the next few years before the 2 year decline - 1937 and 1938. I wasn't sure how many games Chris used in each year, so I just used 77 games in 1921, 60 games in 1922, 142 games from 1923-1932, 120 games from 1933 - 1936, 54 games in 1937, and a few games in 1938.
There were some years where there were no comparable players at his position because Scales' OPS+ were too high.
1923: 144 OPS+. No one was within 15 points at 3rd base.
1927: 140 OPS+. No 3rd baseman is close.
1928: 128 OPS+ at SS. No one else is over 114.
1931: 135 OPS+ at 2b. No one in NL over 121.
1932: 120 OPS+ at 2b. Highest in NL is 111.
1936: 129 OPS+ at 3b in half play. No one in NL over 111.
In those cases, I tried to find comparables at the 2nd, 3rd, and SS.

Anyway, this is what I came up with.
1921: 7, at 3b
1922: 6, at 3b
1923: 29, at 3b/2b
1924: 20, at 2b
1925: 23, at SS
1926: 17, at SS
1927: 30, at 3b
1928: 24, at SS
1929: 23, at 2b
1930: 18, at 2b
1931: 25, at 2b
1932: 21, at 2b
1933: 21, at 2b
1934: 12, at 2b or 10, at OF
1935: 15, at 2b or 14, at 3b
1936: 14, at 3b
1937: 5, ?
1938: 1, at 3b

Career total: 310
Best any 3 years/peak: 84
Best 3 straight years (Kelly's peak measure): 77
Best 5 straight years/prime: 120
Best any 7 years (Kelly's prime): 175
I believe all these numbers should be increased because the results of the Hall of Fame study.
Position: Good Question.

In 1923, if a 2b, his 29 would be the best in AL over Collins' 24, but behind Frisch's 31 in the NL.
In 1923, if a 3b, his 29 would be the best in Al over Kamm's 20, and tied/just ahead of Traynor's 28 in the NL.
In 1925, his 23 at SS would put him in the argument with Sewell's and Wright's 24 for best in majors. Dobie Moore would be best overall though.
In 1927, his 30 at 3b would make him best in majors over Traynor's 26 and Hale's 18.
In 1928, his 24 at SS would make him arguably the best in the majors over Sewell's 23 and Jackson's 22.
In 1931, his 25 at 2b would make him arguably the best in the majors with Bishop's 25 and Cuccinello's 23.
In 1932, his 21 at 2b would put him right behind Herman's 23 in NL.

I tried to be conservative. Also, remember these are numbers from Holway. The numbers from the Hall of Fame Study would give him a significant boost - maybe from a 118 OPS+ to a 125 OPS+. Consequently, his win shares would need to be increased, but I don't know by how much each year. If the increase in OPS+ is worth 2 win shares a year in his years as a regular (1923-1936) that would be an additional 30 win shares. If worth 1.5, then an additional 22. Also, his peak and prime would come very close to Billy Herman, Frankie Frisch, and John Beckwith.

Hope this helps.

Since this is the first time I have done this, please be kind when you point out my mistakes.

If people want to see all of my comparisons year by year, I can clean them up and post them by Wednesday.

Without in any way wanting to dismiss Scales as a serious candidate (and he's been in my top 40-50 for a long time), it's important to bear in mind that he was playing during the highest offense era in NeL history, and he was playing in extreme hitters' parks throughout the 1920s. Willard Brown was one of the top 4 hitters for power in the Negro Leagues in the 1940s (after Gibson, with Leonard and Irvin). That might have been top 5 if Luke Easter had been consistently playing league ball. George Scales was not one of the top 4 power hitters in the Negro Leagues in the 1920s.

I know it is the end of the school year for many, but I was hoping we could get an update of Scales' MLEs after the Hall of Fame study. From the study's numbers, it looks like the mid-30s trough is not as deep as previously thought. Probably only 1933 and 1934.
Also, he may have been able to play into his 40s. These are his numbers from 1940 from the HOF study: .353 to lg .272, slg: .571 to lg .383. His OBP (h+bb/ab+bb) was .468. He was playing for the Baltimore Elite Giants that year. Does anyone know what their park factor was like?

I am trying to compare the numbers from Mac to the HoF to see how various years need to be adjusted, but I am a neophyte at this.

I'm pretty darned certain that Clarkson is a better player all around than Marv Williams, based on the available data, my own limited interpretation of their histories, and my latest method for finding MLE figures. Williams played in a lot of lower-level leagues. He played very, very well there. But when you convert that to an MLB environment, a lot of air comes out. But also Williams played in a ton of border leagues and leagues at altitude where runs came cheaply. When you account for that, you see still more erosion.

Take his year in the AZ-TX league where he hit .401/.471 est./.854. He was amazing that year. But the league was averaging 7 r/g! So the NL was scoring only 60% as often as AZ-TX.... Then tack on the fact that the league was Class C (second lowest classification, which I take at .65 of the majors) and had very few big stars or future stars, then you see why his translation into the 4.17 r/g National League comes out as .250/.314/.496. In a 4.5 r/g environment, that's .261/.327/.518. Good, especially for a 2B, not great.

Here then are Clarkson's advantages over Williams as I see them:
1) Played in high-level leagues more often
2) Better MLE numbers
3) Played a tougher set of positions (SS/3B vs. 2B/1B), and I suspect played them about as well as Williams played his (neither has hosanahs regarding their gloves).

As for Scales, Chris will likely need to weigh in on that one, I don't have as strong a working knowledge about the Tubster as I do Williams and Clarkson.